Talk:Shroud of Turin/Archive 3

Research in 2009: forged by Leonardo da Vinci?

 * Regarding this recent insertion, the shroud is of course a useful coathanger to sell tv, newspapers and books and such.. a kind of religious conspirary item. Is every one of these stories to get its own section? This program from channel 5 is not very well researched and I would call it tabloid tv. Is it scholarly enough to even be worthy of any comment at all, never mind its own section...the article is already very long, and the insetion, with the bullet points look a bit unwikified. We should be careful not to help create a article full of all the conspiracy stories surrounding the shroud. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC))
 * Agreed, the report of the documentary's content is not verifiable unless transcripts are cited. Even then the documentary itself is not a reliable source unless, for example, it is peer reviewed or its production team are widely repected as scholarly - no such claims are made in the article. If the documentary features the work of respected and noted scholars then their work may qualify for inclusion.  Meanwhile I would regard the section as distinctly unworthy of inclusion. -- Timberframe (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly said Timberframe. I'll take it out. (Off2riorob (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)) I'll wait for a comment from the inserter. (Off2riorob (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC))
 * I have emailed Channel 5 TV (for contact information see http://about.five.tv/customer-services/contact-details ) asking for references for this information. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Leave it alone. As time passes, people will likely add references. As this program went out on a reputable national television channel, it was presumably properly researched. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Anthony, Its rubbish really, unscholarly, work from no one of worthy of respect. Tabloid tv, come back with it if you get any cites and if you can show that the makers are respected. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC))
 * Here is the queried text:
 * Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What about adding..for now..a comment in the recent developments section that channel 5 aired a documentary speculating that the shroud was a forgery by da vinci. and adding a citation tag if one can't be foung. Just an idea! (Off2riorob (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC))
 * Remember that the tag isn't a license to include unsourced material; if Channel 5 don't respond to Anthony's request for a transcript, or the transcript doesn't meet Wiki's standards, it'll have to go.  Meanwhile, including it with a tag may encourage others with access to relevant info to add to it, so I say go ahead for now. -- Timberframe (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added a short comment with a link to a press article about the documentary. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC))
 * I find it interesting that none of the "experts" claiming fraud address the "Crown of Thorns" issue. The man on the shroud is not wearing a carefully weaved Crown" common in art up to the present day.  Rather the man on the shroud has wounds and bloodflow consistent with what looks like a thornbush smashed on top of his head.  That's what the original research team reported in the 70's at any rate.  That DaVinci documentary is laughable, too.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a book and other stuff at google, so I think a line is ok and if someone finds one a line disputing the forgery claims, all well and good. I think these claims to be worth a line and a cite but that is about all. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC))
 * After watching the doc, I think something should be wriiten aboot how the shroud can be duplicated. The process that revealed a negative was really enlightening.Halbared (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Pollen
Pollen finds confirm the presence in Edessa (Anatolian Steppe). In Historical references. Is this accurate, that pollen (which is disputed) that was possibly found on the shroud means it was in Edessa at one point?Halbared (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Why Jesus?
Granted that the shroud may appertain to someone who has been crucified, the article doesn't seem to make clear why anyone considers that person to have been Jesus. Lots of people were crucified in Roman times.

Or am I missing something? Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Countless numbers were crucified but of those, how many received ALL of the following: multiple wounds around the top of the head, a wound on the right side, what appears to be forty or more lashes, and last but not least, legs that HAVE NOT been broken? It is certainly consistent with the descriptions provided within the Gospels. I think much more needs to be said of it's origins and how it was acquired. In particular: the Fourth Crusade; Constantinople; recent revelation about its possession by Templars who apparently worshipped it.70.19.130.123 (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's still pretty speculative to assert it to be Jesus. It's not as though the Romans, or other groups, kept particularly detailed reports of every criminal or troublemaker in their lands.  The shroud matching the gospels isn't really objective evidence of anything at all, though.  I could reproduce a ring much like in the Lord of the Rings, but that doesn't make it historically true.  98.168.192.162 (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably at least a thousand people, Id guess. Just like asking how many people have pled guilty and recieved a sentence of 10 to 25 yrs with parole for a drug Charge. Lots and lots. There MUST be more evidence of it being Jesus. If theres not, I don't even know why were all talking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There's great ignorance on display here.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Image overlaps text
I'm using MSIE 7 and a screen resolution of 1280 x 768. The second image (captioned "The first photo of the Shroud of Turin, taken in 1898...") partially overlaps one line of text, although subsequent lines of text in the same paragraph stop short of the image. Is there a simple fix? -- Timberframe (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I will play/experiment with that later, to see if it can be fixed. History2007 (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Easiest way was to use the same size image for both. It looks ok on 2 browsers I tested. Yours? History2007 (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, looks fine on Firefox and IE7 now. Not sure why changing the image size did it, is there a simple way to explain why the text ran under the corner of the image in the first place? -- Timberframe (talk) 08:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Longer story than fixing it. There are 3 theories: the overlapping text was a medieval forgery, there was a chemical interaction in teh computer, or it was a browser issue.... Cheers. History2007 (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll go with the medieval forgery every time, that seems to be the most rational explanation for much of what happens on my computer :) -- Timberframe (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Front matter reduced
Way, way too much in the front matter, mostly from believers who want to cast doubt on the carbon dating. I doubt that what I deleted belongs in the article at all, but if it does, it needs to be in the body. Actually, it probably needs to be in the separate article on the carbon dating. Vidor (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Way, way too fast in deletion. Please discuss prior to deleting huge amounts of text. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's me discussing it. And here's me, in about five seconds, deleting it again.  Vidor (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not revert you, someone else did, and called it vandalism. You have a few editors against you on this, I think. So please let it rest, else you will run into an edit war. History2007 (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Vidor (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Words of wisdom.

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article....Accordingly, editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, especially if they are not central to the article as a whole....Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article

Now, I'd like to pose the question of whose version better conforms to those guidelines: mine, or those issuing me warnings and characterizing me as a vandal. Vidor (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please wait to hear from a few more users. There is no rush. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

And for further input, please compare my version of the opening matter to the one from five years ago when it was a Featured Article. There is a reason this article has slipped from Featured Article status to B-class. Vidor (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Heck, I'll just post that intro in its entirety.

The Shroud of Turin is a linen cloth bearing the image of a man who appears to have been physically traumatized in a manner consistent with crucifixion. It is presently kept in the royal chapel of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy. Some believe it is the cloth that covered Jesus when he was placed in his tomb and that his image was somehow recorded on its fibers. Skeptics contend it is a medieval hoax or forgery. It is the subject of intense debate among some scientists, believers, historians and writers regarding where, when and how the shroud and its image were created.

Forceful arguments and evidence against the miraculous origin of the shroud include a letter from a medieval bishop to the Avignon pope claiming personal knowledge that the image was cleverly painted to gain money from pilgrims, radiocarbon tests in 1988 that yielded a medieval timeframe for the cloth's fabrication, and analysis of the apparent "blood flecks" by microscopist Walter McCrone, who concluded they are ordinary pigments. Forceful arguments and evidence for the shroud's being something other than a medieval forgery include textile and material analysis pointing to a 1st century origin, the unusual properties of the image itself which some claim could not have been produced by any image forming technique known before the 19th century, charges of serious flaws in the 1988 radiocarbon dating, and chemical analyses of the purported blood stains which flatly contradict McCrone's assertions.

Both skeptics and proponents tend to have very entrenched positions on the cause of formation of the shroud image, which has made dialogue very difficult. This may prevent the issue from ever being fully settled to the satisfaction of all sides.

Yep, that was the entire introduction from back in the days when this was a Featured Article and not an unsightly mess. Vidor (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that I think about it maybe I should cut and paste the Featured Article version of this page in its entirety. Vidor (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone else like to pitch in to this conversations? Specifically, the two individuals who have reverted my edits, or the one individual who took it upon himself to threaten me with being blocked? Vidor (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have long thought that the current LEAD looks like a bag of ass. I actually think what you have posted above is a more accurate summary of the article without the POV pushing from either side.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Vidor - the current lead is too long, and contains material that should be in the body of the article. The above-pasted alternative lead is much better. Logicman1966 (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments are arriving, but please wait for another day or two for more comments, then the current material can move elsewhere, if most people agree. The 5 year old item may work as a starting point, but obviously needs to be updated. History2007 (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Logicman1996's assessment. I'll add that, regardless of issues of length, and of allocation of information between the introductory section and the body, the statement that the Shroud has "the image of a man presumed to be Jesus Christ" does not belong in the article anywhere.  We should certainly report that some people believe that to be true but an encyclopedia article is generally not a place for indulging presumptions. JamesMLane t c 16:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Carbon dating.. again
Sorry to bring this up yet again, but previous discussions on this page have not yeilded a consesnsus regarding the article's wording in relation to what the material was that was sampled. This recent edit raised the point again, adding in a ref:

but it was shown that all three samples were taken from a corner of the cloth that was part of a supportive backing cloth added during repairs in the Middle Ages

I've removed this pro tem because it is not clear whether it is supported by the ref within which it is embedded, and if it is supported then it should be in the main body, not hidden away in a ref.

Does anyone have access to reliable sources that clarify whether the samples were of the original cloth or of a later repair?

-- Timberframe (talk) 09:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What is certain is that there is no agreement on that issue. E.g. the book Shroud Story referenced in the article also stated that it was the wrong sample, but people disagreed, etc. Hence it must be stated as a point of contention among researchers. Hence I think the edit you removed would be best re-instated. Indeed this Carbon-dating issue is key to the intro-discussion above as well. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Given your assurance that referenced sources raise the point I'm all for reinstating words to the effect, but in the main body of the article so as to balance and qualify the assertion of a medieval date for the shroud. I don't have access to the cited sources so I would ask anyone with access to such sources to add a suitable form of words with a corresponding ref. Cheers -- Timberframe (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC) You beat me to it! Thanks again -- Timberframe (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have access to the original sources and arguments on both sides that are very convincing, again, you will find few who agree on the data as the study itself was flawed and Nature once again produced a spurious article based on editorializing and paraphrasing. The molecular results from Arizona were vastly different than the results produced in England and Switzerland, for example. This called into question the methodology used by the British museum. I can email a pdf version if you wish. Let me know.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Traces of Carbon in the front matter
In fact, based on the above, the situation as I see it is as follows:


 * The intro is long, and needs to be reworked. The input above also indicates that.


 * Although the intro needs to be reworked carefully, we must accept that this page gets edited so often that in 6 months the intro will probably be out of shape again.


 * Carbon-dating will get people so worked up they will usually need a cold drink after discussing it. So both views on the carbon dating issue need to be briefly addressed in the intro and then a comment note left in the text that the main discussion should take place below without lengthening the intro.

Then we may get some stability. But then come May 2010 and the Shroud goes on display and the editors come out of nowhere and the edit melee starts again.... well... History2007 (talk) 10:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that the apparent blood stains are actually what they appear, if/when the Vatican permit further tests on this artifact, perhaps scientists could use the advances in small copy DNA testing. If it transpires that this IS a 1st century textile, it would be facinating to see what proportion of the World's population now share this man's genetic profile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.152.121 (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If an ossiery is ever unearthed bearing an inscription refering to the historical person known as Jesus, the DNA from these remains could be tested and compared to that from the Shroud.

The results would be interesting to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.152.121 (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Frontmatter reduction
Given that almost all comments wanted the introduction shortened, I will now do that. But we MUST have an outlet for the battle of opinions elsewhere, so I will create a new section about carbon dating debates where Rugby can be practiced by new editors who will undoubtedly arrive in 3 weeks with a whole pile of new ideas and opinions. I will also leave a note for new items to be added there, not in the intro. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent developments, shroud reproduction
On October 6, 2009, a new paragraph was added under "Recent Developments" detailing a college professor's reproduction of the shroud using a volunteer. He apparently put a linen sheet over the volunteer and rubbed it with an "acidic pigment". And it seems the reproduction closely matched the Shroud of Turin with minor differences. I'm wondering if anyone knows whether or not the volunteer had a beard? And if the beard appeared in the reproduction? And if his hair appeared in the reproduction, assuming he wasn't bald? Lastly, were photos taken of the reproduced shroud? Did the photos match photos of the Shroud of Turin? All of that information is obviously important. If everything has already been verified shouldn't a new section be added under "Possible means of image formation"? A11Global (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A new section needs for/against arguments for balance. In 18-24 months for/against arguments relating to this will appear in the literature and press. Until then it is best left in the new developments section. History2007 (talk) 06:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Full length image
Full length negatives of the shroud of Turin.  PHG  Per Honor et Gloria 20:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Carbon Dating on the Shroud
Has anyone here heard of Dr. David Sinclair from Carleton University, who designed the carbon dating facility used to date the Shroud —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pillsberry (talk • contribs) 22:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * THREE facilities were used to date the Shroud, not one. I've never heard of Sinclair.  So you have any evidence that he was involved in the design of any of these facilities?Bertsche (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, The article states:

"The chosen laboratories at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, produced consistent results indicating that the analysed portion of the shroud dated from the 13th to 14th centuries (1260–1390).[4]"

The statement "consistent results" is clearly wrong as the referenced source states:


 * Tucson had calculated an age for the sample of 646 ± 31 years;
 * Oxford had obtained an expected age of 750 ± 30 years,
 * Zurich had calculated the sample to be 676 ± 24 years old

Simple math should tell you that 646+31 != 750-30. This is an example of inconsistent results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.114.58.20 (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since there is no definition suggested for what constitutes consistency or inconsistency, when it comes to evaluating a group of fairly close but non-overlapping age distributions calculated with a particular p-value, I have removed the word "inconsistent", and not reverted to "consistent" either. That the results of the radiocarbon dating in aggregate indicate an origin of 1260–1390 CE does not seem to be disputed by any experts; even those who believe the Shroud to be older seem to think the problem is with confounds in the fabric sampling or unique features of the image creation process, rather than with anything properly called probabilistic inconsistency. Distinct Kicking Motion (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree Timberframe (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, inconsistent is not the best word. Inaccurate would be the proper description. The labs reported very precise results, but clearly inaccurate, since their results are incompatible. The edit by Kicking Motion makes the article technically correct, but misleading.


 * No, the three laboratory results ARE consistent! The ranges quoted are 1-sigma errors.  32% of the time the true value will fall outside of a 1-sigma range.  The fact that one of three values did so is to be expected.  All of the values are within 2-sigma (the 95% confidence interval), which is a common statistical definition of "consistency".  Note that according to the Feb 1989 Nature article, Prof. Bray of Turin "confirmed that the results of the three laboratories were mutually compatible."  Those who claim the results are "inconsistent" are ignorant of basic statistics and data analysis.Bertsche (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Miraculous formation
Per Articles for deletion/Weak dematerialization (Shroud of Turin) and Fringe theories/Noticeboard I suggest that this fringe section should be removed from the article. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That can be discussed again, but please do not start a Formula One deletion race yet. Discussion takes time and there is the pending WP:BRD issue above as yet. History2007 (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no, that won't fly. First of all, the consensus for deletion of this fringe article is all but assured. Secondly, you are attempting a very old wiki-trick: arguing that since consensus on any specific alternative may not have been reached yet, that means that the (crappy) status-quo is sacrosanct. That is a perversion of the wiki model. *** Crotalus *** 21:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the Miracluous formation section is NOT included in the dematerialization theory. It is a separate item and is fully referenced text. Its deletion will be fully against policy. The fact that the theory EXISTS is a separate issue if it is agreed to by X people. The fact that it exists can not be deleted. History2007 (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it is fringe (and therefore should not be included) can not be disputed unless some new, credible, and unbiased references are brought up. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Now, exactly where does it say that Miracluous formation claims to be a scientific theory? It clearly positions it as a religious viewpoint, not a scientific theory for it says it was by methods not available to science. Hence it is not a scentific claim, but a religious one. Perhaps that needs to be further clarified if not obvious to you, but there is no Wikipedia policy that says that one can not state beliefs about the Resurrection of Jesus because physicists do not believe it. My guess (no opinion research) is that over 95% of physicists do not agree with the Resurrection of Jesus or Easter, but that does not mean that those articles can be deleted from Wikipedia because they state the religious beliefs of people, not field equations. History2007 (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Resurrection of Jesus is not a testable scientific claim; it is an article of Christian faith. Therefore the opinions of scientists on this matter carry no more weight than the opinions of everything else. The provenance of the image on the Shroud is quite different; it is a physical, empirical, testable claim. And the scientific evidence shows that it is a medieval painting or rubbing. See Steven Jay Gould's theory of non-overlapping magisteria for more details. When religions stick to faith, that's fine, and we shouldn't give undue weight to skeptical points of view. But when they make testable, falsifiable claims (like saying that this medieval shroud was Jesus's burial cloth, or claiming that the world is only 6000 years old and that evolution didn't happen) then they are stepping onto science's turf, and the scientific consensus must take precedence. *** Crotalus *** 15:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So are you saying that the fact that religious people disagree with specific scientific reports can not even be mentioned in Wikipedia and must be banished from Wikipedia's pages? That will be a precedent setting new type of censorship. The fact that there is disagreement can not be censored. I think Wikipedia probably states somewhere that some religious believe evolution did not happen. But it also says that biologists disagree with the religious on that issue. Does Wikipedia exclude the fact that there are people who believe evolution did not happen? Note that the "fact" here is not whether evolution happened or not, but that there are opposing views, pitting scientists versus some religious people. History2007 (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Crotalus, "the scientific evidence shows that it is a medieval painting or rubbing." But according to a recent peer-reviewed article (Baldacchini, Lazzaro, Mura, Fanti, Applied Optics, 2008.) : "The body image of the Turin Shroud has not yet been explained by traditional science; so a great interest in a possible mechanism of image formation still exists." Crotalus, I think that your refs are out-of-date. Thucyd (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

— Thucyd (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Actually Thucyd my argument is at the meta-level regardless of the scientific issues. The question is: Why is there an article on Creation–evolution controversy at all? According to his view even the mention of the controversy must be "banished" from Wikipedia. I really do not even follow the arguments presented in Flood geology and do not even know what the for/against arguments there are. What is clear is that these topics that pit science against religion do have pages, and Wikipedia policies clearly allow the "statement of the fact that the controversy exists" to be included. The existence of controversy can not be censored from Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Creation–evolution controversy article is not there to give each side equal weight, but to collect all arguments against Creationism in one place. Furthermore, the image on the shroud has been reproduced in modern times and the only reason science hasn't proved every related pseudo-scientific theory wrong, is that there is a constant addition of new pseudo-scientific theories. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * First:


 * Is the statement "the only reason science hasn't proved every related pseudo-scientific theory about the shroud wrong, is that there is a constant addition of new pseudo-scientific theories" your personal opinion or do you have refereed articles that state that? Actually that statement is impossible to prove, e.g. see Falsifiability.


 * Secondly, is the statement: "The article is not there to give each side equal weight, but to collect all arguments against Creationism in one place" just your personal guess or is that goal stated somewhere within Wikipedia? Do you have a reference for that statement or is that just your opinion? Does that statement also apply to Flood geology?


 * So please do answer those questions. Now, that aside, in order to present arguments "against" Miraculous formation you need to say what it is just as you have to say what Flood geology is before you can argue against it. I did not even know what Flood Geology was until yesterday, so the article had to say it. Hence the statement of what the Miraculous formation theory is must be included in order to even argue against it. Hence the section must remain. It is only logical. Please note that I am not suggesting that any theory is correct or not, but that the controversy requires the statement of theories before they can be pitted against each other. Moreover please note that Miraculous formation is not either a scientific or pseudo-scientific theory, but a religious belief. It includes zero scientific arguments, but is based on religious beliefs. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Fama Clamosa. Clearly, the image on the shroud hasn't been reproduced in modern times. You can't cite one peer-reviewed article.
 * Garlaschelli's reproduction : 1) isn't peer-reviewed. 2) was strongly criticized by many scientists Thucyd (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Joe Nickell's Relics of the Christ &mdash; published by University Press of Kentucky, &mdash; is probably the single best source on this matter. It contains a lengthy expostulation of the current scientific consensus on the Shroud, spanning several chapters. Your links above are problematic &mdash; you cited the same article twice, and I see no evidence that it is peer-reviewed or that it was published by a reputable university press. And the third article is in Italian, and I also see no evidence of peer review in that case. *** Crotalus *** 14:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * But I noticed that you did not answer my questions. Do you have answers for me? History2007 (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Crotalus. Joe Nickell is not a physicist, he has never published a peer-reviewed article on the Shroud. His tentative of reproduction of the TS doesn't work. See this peer-reviewed article of Giulio Fanti (2002) : "With respect to the photographs of the Shroud, the experiments of V. Pesce Delfino and J. Nickell show a much higher percentage of saturated pixels correlated with areas of non-contact between face and Shroud. This fact is in contrast with the hypothesis that the body image of the Shroud formed according to the technique proposed by the above researchers." . If you speak Italian, you can read the book of this physicist specialized in the study of TS : Giulio Fanti, La sindone, una sfida alla moderna [The Shroud of Turin, a Challenge to Modern Science], 2008, . Thucyd (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Books published by university presses are considered the equivalent of peer-reviewed articles in terms of reliable sourcing. Nickell isn't a physicist, but he is one of the world's foremost experts in debunking false supernatural claims, which is even more relevant here. *** Crotalus *** 17:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * When Nickell says that he knows how to reproduce the image on the TS, physicists write in peer-reviewed articles that his claims are false. I don't know one single peer-reviewed article which sustains Nickell's point of view. I'm afraid that he doesn't represent here the academic consensus. Thucyd (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way Crotalus and Fama if you answer here please also answer my questions, else I will assume you have no answers. History2007 (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What questions are you referring to? I believe I already addressed the substantive points at hand. *** Crotalus *** 17:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

History2007: I must admit I made a mistake regarding the evolution-related article. When I saw the link Creation–evolution controversy I confused it with the article Objections to evolution and its talk page, where I remembered having read the FAQ actually located on Talk:Evolution. Sorry about that. Now, creationism is not science, and no article on Wikipedia is claiming this. There is a broad consensus on Wikipedia that allowing creationism a section in every evolution-related article is WP:UNDUE and that the "controversy" surrounding creationism should only be present in articles directly related to creationism, not in every second science-related article. That said, let's stay on-topic and keep both evolution and creationism out of this.

Regarding the "Miraculous formation" section;
 * 1) At the top of this section I proposed that all references to Weak dematerialization should be removed from the article.  This "theory" is fringe and because this has already been discussed elsewhere at great length, I see no reason to start this discussion all over again.  This is why I started this section and this is what the discussion in this section should really be about.
 * 2) If we simply remove the Weak dematerialization link (we should anyway as that article is about to be deleted) then the section as it is now is only claiming that "Some believers suggest/contend..." (i.e. the section is WP:WEASEL) and need to be reworked.
 * 3) History2007: This bring us back to the pseudoscientific problem: you are mentioning a "Miraculous formation theory" -- what theory?  As long as the section is only saying that "some believers believe" this is not even close to a theory and defenitively not scientific.
 * 4) Furthermore, one of the references used in the section is not confirming that "the various stages of the Passion of Christ" "was miraculously produced" or that this guy "some believers" suggested this.  Rather it is confirming that the images on the shroud are reminiscent of Medieval iconography, i.e. man-made artefacts from the 14th century.  Some quotes from the reference in question:
 * Also, the lack of distortion of the image on the now flat Shroud is a major problem. When removed and flattened out, the image would inevitably have been distorted.  It really does seem that the image was formed on the cloth when it was flat, and the most convincing reproductions have been done on flat linen.
 * [...]
 * However, it should be borne in mind that in fourteenth-century Europe there was a strong cult of the Passion, and the instruments of the Passion, the whip, crown of thorns, crucifix, nails and spear are always depicted together. In the same way images of the crucified Christ bear evidence of all stages of the passion, and so would the Shroud as the ultimate icon of the Resurrection.
 * Alternatively, if one allows the premise that the Shroud is part of a pre-ordained Resurrection then a whole range of causal explanations become valid. The completeness of the image and its catalogue of all the injuries suffered by Christ could be regarded as evidence that the Shroud was divinely intended as a record for the inspiration of mankind.  As Rinaldi put it:
 * When we think of the unsual process that has caused the images on the Shroud and consider all the circumstances that were necessary for their production, we cannot but admire the Providence of God who was pleased to leave to the Church and to the world the material document of the Passion and Death of Christ.

Scientific Investigation of Copies, Fakes and Forgeries, Paul Craddock, p 106-107, Google books

--Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Miraculous formation
(please keep heading what it was as at the start for it drove the discussion)


 * Fama, I think we are actually getting somewhere now. You have read references and we are discussing section content. The word "theory" does not appear in the article about Mirac Formation, I used it only on the talk page. I think we can debate for ever the semantics of if it is a theory or not. That does not matter to me really. The fact is that the Shroud is an item with a very religious context and it is not a moon rock being analyzed for its composition. Hence the article must mention the religious beliefs of large numbers of people about it, as well as the technical analyses of scientists based on various theories. I will take a look at the references later to see how to touch up the section to more accurately reflect the references. But I am now assuming that you are no longer advocating the deletion of the section, but we are now debating section content. Do I understand that right before we move on to the discussion of content? Please do clarify this. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead of the article is already saying: "Believers contend that the shroud is the cloth placed on the body of Jesus Christ at the time of his burial, and that the face image is the Holy Face of Jesus.". The Miraculous formation is adding virtually nothing to this and it is misusing at least one of it sources.  As all content on Wikipedia, this section needs good references, especially when challenged.  Various religious beliefs attributed to "some believers" should not be left unchallenged.  The quotes above (already used in the section) clearly describe the images as Medieval iconography.  Unless the section finds some good references, it should definitively be removed.  --Fama Clamosa (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead has to summarize the content, hence the content must be there and the lead can summarize it. So now I understand that your position is that if the section is referenced, it can not be removed. I can add references to the section for sure. So I will consider this specific discussion closed after I add a couple of more references that say some people believe the image was a divine act. Done. History2007 (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Any content can be challenged at any time. What I'm trying to say is that the article is already full of shroud proponents and sceptics presented as "scientist" one way or the other and "peer-reviewed journals" most people never heard of.  On Wikipedia references are not only there to ensure that content is not WP:OR, but also to make articles stable -- this obviously failed in this article.  As long as the article is riddled with references only shroud proponents trust, the article will never become a featured article again.  So, I guess this section not only should have references confirming that this relic is regarded as an object of divine origin by believers (which is sort of obvious), but the section should also have references explaining that this has been disputed by research (i.e. the shroud is from around 1350). --Fama Clamosa (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * References about what the nuns said do not generally get reviewed by physicists. And although Wikipedia says that peer reviewed is preferred, it does not say it is mandatory. A quick check will show that only a small fraction of Wikipedia references are peer reviewed outside of purely scientific articles. The Miracl formation issue makes no scientific claims anyway, and certainly there are many people who disbelive miracles as a start. The issue is clear in articles such as the one on Zamzam Well which attribute beliefs to people, but involve no discussions of physics. History2007 (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Article quality and structure
Who has actually read all of this article? On the edit count front I have a lot of edits counted, but I wrote a very small amount of this page. The fact that this is a "hot topic" means that many new users just pop out of everywhere and add items with or without references. I guess (no proof) that about 20% of the references are actually valid. And I do not expect the situation to get any better ever, unless the page gets semi protected, or Wiki rules change. It will take an army of reference checkers to watch over the new additions over the next 3 years for new material. My feeling is that this article will need 3 sections: Introduction, topic overview and the rest. The rest, as is can be kindly described as a Rummage Sale. The mid section has to extract the best parts of the rummage sale and let the rummage sale be where people add new items over the next N years. History2007 (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article should probably be rewritten from scratch and then permanently semi-protected. I may do that if the mood strikes me (well, at least the rewriting part; I'd need to get an admin to apply semi-protection). *** Crotalus *** 19:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You will need superconsensus before the rewrite. History2007 (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I won't. Don't be silly. This is Wikipedia &mdash; I don't need advance permission to make changes to articles. *** Crotalus *** 20:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You can not just delete referenced text. History2007 (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

History2007: You just said it yourself. 20% of the referenced parts of the article is valid; so, everything not referenced should go, as should 80% of the rest. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I said it was a guess and I had no proof. The task is that of cleaning it up without deleting the parts that have valid references and that takes significant effort. It can only be done a section at a time, carefully after reference checking. By the way Fama please do answer my question above regarding Mira Formation. I assume you have agreed the section can not be deleted. History2007 (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Our editing guidelines encourage boldness in editing articles. No need to walk on eggshells. *** Crotalus *** 13:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it will be another WP:BRD issue again, for which warnings have already been issued and the beginning of a potential edit war. Please avoid an edit war, while I am carefully going through the article to reference check it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * History2007, drop this BRD idea. What you are asking for here is WP:OWN and, as far as I can see, you are only "updating" the references already present, not addressing the NPOV issue at all or rewriting anything.  To me it looks like everything is going to look just the same once you're done checking these references.  --Fama Clamosa (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually I started by stating that I have no claim to ownership or authorship here and have written a very small part of this article. Actually a lot of the article is so bad that if I had written it, I would disclaim ownership! However, I would like to see an orderly reorganization rather than random deletions of items that will result in their re-addition shortly thereafter. As for what I have done in 1 day, it is because I am just getting started, and I have not got to the controversial parts yet, for I am cleaning up the easy parts first in an orderly manner. But I did suggest to you guys to clean up the science part also in an orderly manner in my comments below. I think this article can improve while we all respect WP:BRD. History2007 (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Bot archive
This talk page is about 200K. Any objections to add a bot to archive this page? I propose all threads older than a month should be moved to the archive. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 09:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no problem archiving items more than 6 months old, but recent discussion should remain to give context. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As I understand Help:Archiving a talk page only inactive threads are archived by these bots. I'm not sure about guidelines here, but time before archiving is usually chosen in relation to the activity on/length of the talk page.
 * (By the way History, when you edit you keep (1) removing the section name from the edit summary and (2) you describe your edits as "ce". Per Edit summary legend this is an acronym for "Copy Editing".  Your usage is possibly confusing to many editors.  So, don't delete the section name from the edit summary and try to choose more specific summaries.)  Thanks  --Fama Clamosa (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So the bot does not allow you to select the length of time? By the way, I should mention that the talk page to be archived included a specific request by some users a while ago on a better explanation of the position of the Church on the Shroud and the church view section was partly motivated by that. History2007 (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No, time before archiving can be chosen. Keeping threads short is good thing since very long discussions can be overwhelming to newcomers. The code to set a limit to two months could look something like this (adapted from Talk:Left-handedness): There are some other rules/limitations if I recall correctly. It's possible each thread must have at least two date stamps to get archived, I'm not sure. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I assume then no one objects to the above proposal. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Semi protection
The way this page became a rummage sale was that IPs and many new users out of nowhere added a lot of material in a form that could kindly be called chaos. After all the work to clean it up, I think the page needs semi-protection, else it will become a mess again very soon. An IP and a new user with 1 edit added items to pollen today that I will have to clean up tomorrow. I can not keep doing that for ever. And given that the shroud will go on display next month, the page access and the chaotic edits will just shoot up. If you guys agree, we should ask help from an admin to get semi-protection. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Article structure and quality 2
I thought about this article more after the flags were placed. I am now going through to check references and have done so for just the first section. It takes much time. And I think the article, is just too long and hard to read, so it probably needs sub-articles and summaries here. Now I see the article on this "piece of cloth" as having 4 separate elements:


 * 1. Description of the object: This a totally non-controversial element. These are pure facts, e.g. the fact that it measures approximately 4.4 × 1.1 m or the fact that it is woven in a three-to-one herringbone twil or that there are 14 patches on it sewn by nuns. This section has no problems, for it debates nothing, and it should not debate anything, just present the description.


 * 2. Recorded history: There are two parts here: post-1800 history and prior to that. After the years 1800 the history of the Shroud is almost 100% certain. It was kept in the Turin Cathedral, was exhibited, photographed, donated, etc. This part is completely free of controversy. Prior to that the history gets exponentially vague as we go backwards. The problem, as stated in the article is that it is not clear if 14th century historians were writing about this Shroud or another one. I can fix some of that, but along with the discussion below, it probably needs a sub-article based on the length issue and then be fixed over time. There is much historical debate therein. I think History of the Shroud of Turin will be a good place to move that material with a summary here.


 * 3. Religious beliefs: These are based on beliefs that often predate the scientific discussions and generally do not involve reasoning based on laws of physics, biology, etc. Nuns who know no physics have been involved in these discussions and expressed beliefs about it, etc. Popes have approved medals based on it, made comments, etc. These items can just be referenced and added and are actually much shorter in length than the controversial discussions. These can just be reference checked and kept.


 * 4. Scientific perspective: This forms the longest, most intellectually involved and the most debated aspect in the article. It involves several elements:


 * Dating the shroud based on tests
 * Methods of image formation
 * Pollen
 * Recent developments
 * etc. etc.


 * This clearly needs a sub-article Scientific analysis of the Shroud of Turin that can be dealt with and updated over time, as debates inevitably continue.

Anyway, It will take time for me to go through the sections one by one and reference check them. In the meantime, what will be useful is a suggestion of the specific scientific "subtopic" such as pollen, etc. for they are at the moment not well structured. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the idea to isolate controversial and problematic content to a single section -- this way the rest of the article will hopefully be both clean and accessible to most readers. I'm less convinced by the idea to shovel crappy stuff to separate pages; the "Scientific analysis of... " article is going to attract all kinds of pseudoscience.  I'd rather see this kind of stuff cornered here in this article, a hermetic article with no chance to recreate another incarnation of Weak dematerialization.
 * Also, the "Religious beliefs" part probably needs to limit itself to official statements, descriptions from well-known journals/papers, etcetera (not necessarily pro or con anything, could be the BBC for example). Quoting "a nun", per your example above, is problematic unless she comes with a context that motivates her inclusion; this could quickly cause the article to degenerate to its present state again. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, we are making progress. The fact is that even the history section is so loooong that I have not even bothered to read it all to date. And the scientific discussion is even longer than that. But there is also historical controversy about textual analysis that I do not understand yet that can not go into science part. Can I invite you guys and Thucyd to help on the science part while I clean up the history and beliefs items? I have not really read all the science claims yet and do not even know the details, but if you know them well, your effort in cleaning those up will be appreciated. But I think Thucyd knows that topic 10 times better than I do, so his input should certainly be used and valued. However, do remember that if you delete items that too many people like, they will add them back in within 4 weeks and it will be a mess again. So clean up should maintain a mention of all theories etc. else someone will pop back and add it again. That is why I think in the long term a sub-article is just waiting to happen. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am still cleaning up. Are you guys going to help check the references and improve and clean up the scientific part? I hope so. I don't want to do all the work myself. History2007 (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You have deleted a LOT of material. Some of it was important, like the section on "Artistic Analysis".  Can you please restore this section in whole or in part?  Also the section on textual analysis, but this was in the wrong place.  I'll try to put it back in a better location.Bertsche (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I kept all the sourced items, and moved them to the History of Shroud article History_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin. I would really prefer if you guys deal with that material, if you know and understand it. On one side, there is the argument that this article is "worse than junk" and 80% should be deleted, on the other hand now you say too much is deleted. Please feel free to add back the "sourced" items from artistic items etc. Would you like to clean up the entire Science section? That would be great from my point of view. But please do not keep any unsourced material, because there is just too much junk here anyway. That section is a rummage sale really. But your help in cleaning up the science section will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I now looked and the Biblical comparison has no source. Biblegateway is not enough and will need sources. Could you please either add sources or delete it? I think it fits better in pre-history as well to give context. I also started looking at the Science section. Consider where it starts with:.... Microchemical tests also find traces of vanillin in the same area... That paragraph has 3 citation needed flags. I do not even know what Vanillin is, but it is clearly unsourced and must go. So please help in cleaning these up, and not keep anything unsourced. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should attach the relevant tags to particular problematic places (such as sentences or sections), not to the top of the article. Currently the top seems to be cluttered. Brand[t] 21:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, but I don't know the section tags. If you will do that it will be great. By the way, I had just left you a message jokingly suggesting a 10% salary increase if you would help clean the Science section. I will now offer the same salary increase to all others who help. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that "scientific analysis" section needs a reorganization. In my opinion, it should be like this :
 * I History (from Pia to 2000's)
 * II A) Textile analysis
 * II B) Medical forensics
 * II C) Chemical analysis (pigments, blood)
 * II D) Image analysis (tridimensionality, double-superficiality, letters)
 * II E) Radiocarbon dating
 * II F) Biological analysis (flowers and pollens)
 * III Image formation hypothesis
 * III A) Natural Process (vaporography, Maillard reaction, auto-oxydication...)
 * III B) Forgery (painting, bas-relief, dust-transfer, "photography")
 * III C) Other means of reproduction (Corona discharge, laser, Rinaudo) Thucyd (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, given that you seem to know this topic much better, I have no problem. My guess that it looks better this way anyway, so go for it. But could you do that "soon" please. I REALLY want to wrap this up and not drag it out. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Standard for inclusion
Great work History2007! I fixed the section tags (quite simple really.) As you said above, the scientific analysis section needs more clean-up. I might give it a try later. I guess only the most notable analyses should stay in this article, and that everything else should either be removed as fringe and/or exported to a separate article. Because this is the controversial part of the article there is a need to find a standard for inclusion. There are references in this section, but dozens are not NPOV. I suggest that inclusion should require one or all of (1) references from both pros and cons (this would exclude the most fringed hypotheses) and/or (2) coverage from mainstream press (this would allow for some dubious content when notable enough, sort of). --Fama Clamosa (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. But the hard part of the work has not even started! All I did was to try to even understand what the issues were and categorize the items. For instance, the Anointing Residue item was along with optical analysis and I reorganized the items to be together, so we could even begin to look at them. That took effort, and I learned a lot about the topic in the process, but the task of checking the references for quality is even much harder. I will give you an example of the nightmare that this involves:


 * There is an item for Joseph Marino and Sue Benford who argued based on the x-ray analysis of the sample sites that something was wrong in the tests and even discussed some statistics. There is no reference to what they said, and where they said it, so it should either be deleted or a reference found.


 * There is a reference to "J.A.Christen, Summarizing a Set of Radiocarbon Determinations: a Robust Approach. Appl. Statist. 43, No. 3, 489-503 (1994)" who disagreed with them and said that the Carbon dating worked fine. J.A.Christen's item looks like it should certainly be included, for it is one of the few references that is actually from a "respectable" mathematical/statistical journal. But then how do we say what he disagreed with if we remove the Marino and Benford item?


 * I tried to be sure that the Christen reference was valid and actually appeared in that journal. It was certainly published in that journal, based on a letter I found about it: . Then I started to read the letter out of curiosity and it. It is from another statistician who criticizes the approach Christen used! I have not found or read the reply that Christen probably provided, but I have started to understand why one of the historical journals said that this was the most controversial artifact in history.


 * And it gets worse. I did a search on Marino and Benford and it suggests that "Sue Benford is a world champion power lifter... Joe Marino, former Benedictine monk and Catholic Priest, who is a long-time sindonologist... they have unlocked secrets of the Shroud of Turin". Fantastic! Power lifters and monks are included in the article here with no references. Who needs scientists when one can have these people unlock the secrets?

So I guess you get an idea about the problems here. I think we have to keep Christen, but then the letter about it needs to be there too, now that I came across it. But Marino and Benford have to be deleted, and somehow Christen needs to stand by itself. But all of this take serious effort. And I think the "lack of training" exists on both sides of the table. I always assumed that Joe Nickell was some type of expert, but it seems that his academic training was as in English. So we have English literature experts debating athletes and monks here..... But certainly none of it is scientific. My guess is that most items will turn out to be less than scientific from my sampling of the references here and they will just have to be deleted. But we have to take a look at each before deletion and that takes time. History2007 (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * PS: It gets worse! I just realized that there is also duplication in places such as references 80 vs 83&84. The single weave item was recently added to the Description section with a National Geog reference. It looked good, so I moved it to the material historical analysis. I just realized it was already there, as a BBC report 10 sentences below but the words used to describe it were different. The fact that the items are now "categorized" helped in that discovery, but unless the references are read, duplication will also be present. History2007 (talk) 13:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What a mess! Perhaps we should create separate sections on a temporary subpage trying to sort out who is who and who said what.  We might end up with a timeline identifying various "researchers" as pro and con, flawed or not.
 * I did some googling and found some more information on the problems you pointed out above:
 * Here is a link to Christen's article Summarizing a Set of Radiocarbon Determinations: a Robust Approach (only first page available on-line.)
 * Joseph Marino and Sue Benford, paranormal "researchers": On their site I found several links, including a link to their paper Evidence for the Skewing of the C-14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin Due to Repairs on shroud.com.
 * --Fama Clamosa (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like Thucyd fixed that situation. Thanks. Now Ima looking at references in science section to see which are from reliable journals/sources. Now I am looking at the item about Autooxidation and one of the references is from a book by:


 * Christopher Knight, an author who has written several pseudoarcaeological and pseudohistrocal books - according to Wikipedia!


 * I think that one is just way off from science. And they focus on history not science. Allan Mills has science in it so it can stay, but the pseudoguys have to go. I will do more searches later. In general, it seems that it is just too easy to build a theory, get a book published and run to the bank. But that doe snot qualify as an entry here. Also there is an entire article on Carbin dating and I do not know why 40% or so of it has to be reproduced here. I will try to shorten that and refer to the main article more. History2007 (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Next question: Jacques di Costanzo, of Marseille University Hospital is reported in a French magazine as having carried out an experiment by himself about bass-relief. Google or Google books show no scientific references for this. How can this be claimed as science if no one was there verify it, unlike the Radiocarbon test that had many scientists watching it. I think it is not a reliable item. But the dust transfer from the Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, Volume 34, Number 1, 1994 is clearly scientific and must stay. The question after this: How about moving all the STRUP items together. A few of them are scattered throughout. That may make more sense and will make the rest more readable. History2007 (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is nonsense, I have just refined the scientific overview. The earliest 1900 research and many subsequent scientific examinations debunk the bass-relief hypothesis. What about neutrality and cleanup tags in Scientific analysis? Thoughts when to remove them? Brand[t] 21:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Which bass relief item? I do not see it - any more.... I had just removed it. By the way, the early history items you added were interesting. I had forgotten about those guys. But then the way you added it it overlaps to the present. Could you please just keep the VERY early items on the top section I made and then add the more recent ones to the medical forensics item below? Thanks. I think we need a day or so before we can remove the tags because i have not checked everything yet, e.g. I also realized that the NASA people had rejected bass relief in the article already, so it was also inconsistent. And the tone of the items you added seemed "too definite" and needs to change to X said Y rather than Y is true, etc. History2007 (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Bas-relief hypothesis is inconsistent, but it is very popular among skeptics (Nickell et alii). In my opinion, it has to be mentioned here. Thucyd (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, since you know the topic, we should do that. But could you do it please, so it is there but not as science. I think you should do it since you know the issues. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

On the topic of images. The description and several sources say herringbone twill and I have no idea what that means in fact and how it is different. I looked on Wikimedia and there are many modern images. If one of you guys understands weaving, could you please select an image that will work to explain to a reader in a snapshot what this means. I am not sure which image to select to satisfy both herringbone and twil. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Check this image from the Pray Codex in particular. Also it would be good to check what other researchers mentioned by Meacham say on behalf of Delage's findings to quote them directly. Brand[t] 10:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Hungarian image is a painting and again subject to debate. It is fully mentioned in the history article in any case. My problem is that I have no idea what a Herringbone looks like and I think 50-70% of readers may not know it either, so I was hoping for a modern photo, if an actual photo of the shroud cloth is not in the public domain. But if you guys know of a cloth image that can be added to Wikimedia that would help clarify the issue. As for babbet and others, we can do all of that in time, for now I am trying to check every single reference to wrap up this spring cleaning of the article so it gets a stable form. Then it can improve over time of course. But as is, ref checking and quality checking should come first. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "representative of teh idea"? Although I have not seen a magnified herringbone pattern on TS, it is a well-known fact that the Shroud was woven in such a way (just google with corresponding words for refs). Meacham emphasizes that the thread was hand-spun and hand-loomed, while after ca. 1200 most European thread was spun on the wheel. This particular ref has interesting implications for that and could be useful. Brand[t] 14:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, everyone says that it is herringbone, but I did not know what it looked like. And what does 3/1 mean? It is not a question of references but visualization. Someone can describe a rabbit for 2 hours if you have never seen one, but a photo will do a lot more. I am not using this for an authentication debate, but think that an encyclopedia should inform the user when it uses a set of words. History2007 (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3/1 means that 1 transverse thread goes down and up by turns and is followed by 3 threads of vertical base (although right now I can't recover the source I got it from). Brand[t] 15:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: Standards for inclusion. I noticed that you guys added the probabilistic model of Fanti & Marinelli. It is referenced text and by two professors, so by official Wiki-standards it is an "acceptable entry". But I think it is the weakest entry in the science section. would like to suggest that you either balance it by adding a referenced criticism or just get rid of it, because it contradicts the rest of the article and in my view it is an embarrassment to the institutions which employ the professors, for presenting such a naive model which would not have received a passing grade had they taken a class from me. The wiki-article clearly documents the fact that the authenticity of the artifact is controversial in the published literature, yet these researchers claim astronomical odds in favor of authenticity by analyzing published references. The fact that Fanti designed teh questions and Marinelli is already non-scientific and it is 3rd hand science. Hardly ANY scientists have had access to the artifact, so these people are analyzing reports of reports 3rd hand. Think of it this way: Next week Joe Nickell can design 100 questions, and have his cousin Tom/Bill/Dave Nickell who is a programmer assign weights and feed them to a software package. What do you think the odds will be? I am not arguing for/against authenticity, but against the methodology of Fanti & Marinelli. I think this extremely weak section diminishes teh quality of the wiki-article. History2007 (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree : get rid of it. Dubious methodology. See Mgr Ghiberti's article here.Thucyd (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, done. By the way Thucyd I do not follow the Energy source discussion now. Are you familiar with it? Is it one coherent theory or just a collection of references gathered in that section? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Section sizes
I think most sections except 2 are readable and of reasonable size now, except the Paint and Pigment and the Blood analysis sections. I have checked all sceience references except these two sections. They are too large and unreadable and are debates really, not an encyclopedia entry. Any ideas what to do One option is to make a sub-page, another is just trim them. But then I am sure someone will expand them in 3 months. I prefer teh subpage idea. Any suggestions? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should slash down the paint and pigment theories per WP:WEIGHT to make room for alternative proposals. The Blood stains subsection should be refined imho. Nickell and co. there make quite odd assumptions. John E. Fischer, also mentioned there, heavy speculates actually: unless I'm not mistaken, by 1983 STURP had already confirmed the absence of pigments. The identification of stains with blood is the mainstream view nowadays. It is better to stick to most common theories there with the brief mention of most notable fringe ones. Brand[t] 15:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is far more a question of avoiding headaches rather than deciding if Nickells is right or not - which is NOT our task in Wikipedia. We are not to decide on what is right or not, but summarize the state of affairs based on reliable sources. Nickells sells lots and lots of books. People buy and read them and if his theories are not mentioned, just as Thucyd stated about Bass-relief that we added back, someone else will add that back in 20 days, and probably with references that will need reformatting and broken sentences. Then we have to clean it up. So regardless of if you agree with his ideas or not he has "press power" and needs to get mentioned. I think the only question is if we make a sub-page or just let it be here in this less than orderly form. That is why I prefer having it in the subpage, and summarizing it here. Just like the Bass-relief, even if we consider it less than consistent, it is a "popular theory" and if it is not mentioned by us, will be mentioned by some IP out of nowhere who does not format it right, then we will be doing secreterial work for the IPs. History2007 (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I added the brief implications for photo, paint and bas-relief hypotheses and at the same time spotted an interesting place in this paper (the authors use common numeric refs, I've replaced them with direct ones in brackets for accessibility): to an energy source maybe caused during the resurrection; such energy can be of protonic, neutronic, UV, IR kind or a combination of them; it is not excluded any form of energy till now unknown. In favour of the hypothesis of the energy source also protonic is the relatively high definition of the image details that can be obtained through such energy source acting from inside: in fact if the image is due to diffusion or irradiation it would be more out of focus (J. Jackson et al., Correlation of image intensity on the Turin Shroud with the 3-D structure of a human body shape, Applied Optics, vol. 23, n. 14, 15 luglio 1984, pp. 2244-2270). The hypothesis of the luminous Man foresees that the body image was produced by an intense, but short light source (a flash lasted some hundredths of second) (A. Belyakov, Prospettive di ricerca in Russia sulla Sindone di Torino, in: Atti del convegno di San Felice Circeo (LT) 24-25 agosto 1996, pp. 19-24). Already in 1930 it was supposed that the image could have been caused by a photoflashing phenomenon bound to the resurrection (N. Noguier de Malijay, La Santa Sindone di Torino, Libreria del S. Cuore, Torino 1930). From the image characteristics, many researchers suppose that the radiant source was prevalently vertical. Thoughts on inclusion? Brand[t] 21:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * On one hand, you have every right to add that. On the other hand, by adding such a long entry you are inviting debate. I am ready to bet that someone will add a counter argument and then you have to add again etc. My advice is to keep both the for/against authenticity arguments shorter (and roughly the same size) in this article, so it will not become a forum for the people who can not find anyone in the local bar to debate it with to come over here and debate it indirectly on the page. Fortunately we can not offer people e-beer here... History2007 (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ref checks
"I think" I have checked almost every reference in the science section now, but obviously I could have missed a few. I have not checked the Recent developments section, which seems too long, but we must accept that people will add to that as a new theory appears every few months. I guess this is a good topic if someone is looking to get tenure in a history department or somewhere like that. If you guys want to go ahead and check the recent developments section, please do, but I think the science part is in good shape in terms of sourced claims. I could not find a public domain close up photo of the fabric of the artifact, but that would be nice if anyone can find and add it. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Some refs do not have page numbers as requested in the edit mode, but this is partially because of sources which quote them. It is possible to search for associated online refs to compensate that. At the same time, the reference list should be checked against repetitive usage of the same source and formatted with a,b,c in that case. Brand[t] 22:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, probably so. But I worried mostly about the most controversial items - say the 70% of refs that are subject to debate. History2007 (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Article gives undue weight to fringe theories
I have marked this article with POV because it gives undue weight to fringe positions. The mainstream scientific position on the Shroud of Turin &mdash; backed both by Carbon-14 dating and by contemporary documentary evidence &mdash; is that it is a medieval forgery. However, the article seems to go out of its way to undermine this scientific consensus, which is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. <b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b> 16:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ on that. I think you can add the NPOV flag and that can be discussed here among all interested parties, but the sudden and bold change you made to the lead is clearly subject to WP:BRD and must be discussed before it can stay. With due respect I have to invoke WP:BRD, undue your change except for the NPOV flag and let discussions tak eplace on the talk page. The tone of the lead as is, was the same as it was when it was a featured article and the lead was discussed above, if you look. So it is fully subject to WP:BRD before it can be boldly modified. And statements such as "The results of this test proved" are clearly POV themselves since the debate on this topic is really heated and inconclusive based on various references in the article. History2007 (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The book I cited is from a university press. Per WP:RS, "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available." Also, "Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." A Google Books search showed several chemistry textbooks that actually used the Shroud carbon-14 testing as an illustrative example. I see no evidence that the testing is "heated and inconclusive" in the scientific community; the controversy, such as it is, seems to be limited to the fringe theorists known as sindonologists. Among mainstream scientists, the debate is settled. <b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b> 17:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The debate may be settled in your mind, not mine. I see clear evidence, with at least 10 differing references within this article, etc. So please allow others comment and the discussion to proceed. As for chemistry text books, new evidence has come out since they were written and there are even competing theories so the matter is not settled, and ALL sides seem to claim that the matter is settled in their favor. And that is what the lead says. History2007 (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How many of these "differing references" were published in peer-reviewed journals or academic presses? Or were they all published in popular media? It makes no sense to use newspapers, magazines, and generalist books to impeach academic research. That is a travesty of WP:V and WP:RS. <b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b> 17:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with Crotalus, this article is in great need of clean-up and the idea that a WP:BRD process could ever improve this article must be considered an attempt to give the article away to all fringe theories available. Per Tendentious editing I suggest that History2007's last edit should be reverted. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with this sentence : "The meaning of the results of the 1988 radiocarbon tests indicating the cloth dated from the 14th Century has been discredited by several peer-reviewed scientific works showing the samples used for radiocarbon dating were not representative of the whole Shroud." . See Rogers 2005,, Benford, Marino, 2008 , and non peer-reviewed scientific articles Brown 2005 and Riani 2010 . See also this very good and recent article in The Independent :
 * Nowadays, according to a large majority of scientists, the shroud isn't medieval. It's a fact. Thucyd (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * — Thucyd (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * What is CLEAR here is that there is "disagreement" even in the space of 2 hours. And teh debate is heating up. Is that not what the lead said: that there is heated disagreement on this topic? I do strongly advise everyone to try to calm down and not start an overheated discussion that will inevitably lead to unpleasant results and wait for much more discussion on this topic. There are hundreds of references in this article and just discussing which are applicable is a monumental task in itself. So please let the games begin as "gentlemanly games". Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry Fama Clamosa, but you can not apply WP:BRD to WP:BRD itself. Please do not start an edit war here. I issued a warning message to you. Please revert your own revert, or I will have to declare an impending edit war here. It is FAR too early in the WP:BRD cycle to start reverting. Please read that page ans let the "stable version" that had existed for months be there while WP:BRD discussions continue. And please do not remove references from the lead. You just removed a whole pile of references that you do not seem to like, then added a ref-improve tag! Please reinstate them. The WP:BRD page specifically states that: The BRD cycle does not contain another "B". It stops after the "D". Your revert is a clear violation of WP policies. History2007 (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

History2007: I only reverted your edit, per the POV tag you have accepted. If you want anything in the "stable version" of the article to remain there, please bring some serious, third party, non-biased references to support it. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We can discuss references etc. at length for 3 weeks, I am ready for it. But you performed a revert AFTER I had invoked WP:BRD hence CLEARLY violating Wikipedia policies, as explained above. I do not want to explain that again and again and have to apply WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT to you. I have already explained it twice. In orser to follow Wikipedia policies, please put the lead that existed for months as the WP:STATUSQUO and let a few editors discuss the issue. Knee-jerk reverts just as WP:BRD has started are against policy. I do not object to your deletion of the unsourced material from a section below, but to delete MANY references from the lead and then add a ref-improve tag defies logic and is also against policy. Again, please reinstate the STATUSQUO lead while WP:BRD discussions continue. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note that WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO are merely essays. We are not required to agree with or follow their contents at all times. <b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b> 21:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, not following them is an indication of lack of respect for Wikipedia protocols. And the removal of many references as the two of you did is a CLEAR violation of policy. By the way, I think you just agreed that WP:BRD and STATUSQUO have been violated here, but said that it does not matter. History2007 (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

History2007: You reverted edits by a single user. That is not even the begining of a [BRD] cycle, it looks more like the start of plain old WP:SOAPBOX. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, BRD can start with one user. History2007 (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. History2007, WP:BRD and so many of the "policies" you mention "invoking," are merely essays, not guidelines or policies, and they are not administrative tools that you can "invoke." Is it not "disrespectful" to edit in some way contrary to those essays (uh, nor are they "protocols.") That's why those articles have that disclaimer on the top. You know, the one about their not being guidelines or policies. Next, there is not the level of controversy and debate you are implying. Most of the "heat" you mention is just you replying several times over. Finally, I have to say I agree with Crotalus. Also in need of attention is the entire "Energy Source" paragraph, which goes out of its way to imply that there is some kind of scientific consesus about such a concept, and relies mainly on an interview in which the "researcher" (a historian) even distances himself from the idea calling it "teribly hypothetical." --joeOnSunset (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
In 1997 Avinoam Danin a botanist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem reported that he had identified the type of Chrysanthemum coronarium, Cistus creticus and Zygophyllum whose pressed image on the shroud was first noticed by Alan Whanger in 1985 on the photographs of the shroud taken in 1931. He reported that the outlines of the flowering plants would point to March or April and the environs of Jerusalem.[103][104] In a separate report in 1978 Danin and Uri Baruch reported on the pollen grains on the cloth samples, stating that they were appropriate to the spring in Israel.[105] Of the 58 different types of pollens found, 45 were from the Jerusalem area, while 6 were from the Middle East including Edessa. [106]

The pollen samples from the shroud used by Danin were provided by Max Frei, a Swiss police criminologist of more than 25 years. Skeptics argue that the flower images are too faint for Danin's determination to be definite and that an independent review of the pollen strands showed that one strand out of the 26 provided contained significantly more pollen than the others, perhaps pointing to deliberate contamination[107] and Joe Nickell claims that Frei had previously overstated evidence in a separate matter that did not involve the shroud.[108]

Reasons:

added: "including Edessa" in paragraph 1.

Whoever is overriding my edits is suppressing scientifically significant evidence that brings balance to the article. The pollen samples were taken from the cloth which demonstrated a history in Edessa as well as Jerusalem. By elimitating my reference to Edessa, you are suppressing physical evidence that connects the cloth to pre medieval history and is proof that all the references to medieval fakery is unsupported skepticism.

added: "of more than 25 years" in paragraph 2.

Why you are even including the skeptical point of view in this paragraph is beyond me. No proof of any fakery is substantiated. The critics have never interviewed fellow SURP team members, nor have they ever reviewed scientific controls over evidence distribution that would substantiate their claim. Rather, this is a typical smear tactic in what should be a scientific section. So balance is needed and at a minimum, a more clear statement on Max Frei long service to counterbalance the yellow journalism of this paragraph.

JimfromGTA (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That reference on Edessa was from "The Resurrection of the Shroud" by Mark Antonacci? It is better to quote the immediate researchers. But the yellow journalism and sensationalism, which often favours the forgery theory, should be certainly excluded. Brand[t] 17:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * But I think you are both aware of the fact that this article was recently criticized as being too "pro-authenticity". That was why I wanted a critical view presented in each paragraph. If the pro/against authenticity groups have their way, it will be a battleground. My specific reasons for rewording JimfromGTA's changes were 2 or 3 fold: To begin with his changes were not properly formatted. The references were set in the middle of teh text and we were headed or chaos again, and I an NOT his secretary to clean it up. But more seriously his total defense of Max Frei is flatly incorrect. Mr Frei, may he rest in peace, did have serious credibility problems, e.g. he also authenticated the fake Hitler Diaries, e.g. see: Critical Issues in Biomedical Science 2002 ISBN 0741412349 by Leland L. Smith page 146 or The skeptic's dictionary by Robert Todd Carroll ISBN 0471272426 page 358. And of course the "critic in chief" Joe Nickell also says that in 2 of his books. So to try to add that Fry was in his job for 25 years and can hence just be trusted when reference after reference says otherwise is just not a balanced viewpoint. And to answer JimfromGTA's question of "Why you are even including the skeptical point of view in this paragraph is beyond me." the answer is: so the article will avoid a NPOV flag at the top. If you view this artifact with rose-colored glasses, there are others who read the literature out there, will consider that section as biased and will flag the article as such, throwing the baby out with the bath water. Presenting Mr Frei as a solid citizen is just asking for trouble. So the counter-view must always be represented to avoid NPOV problems. History2007 (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"editsemiprotected" not done at this time; I see discussion above, so it's not a clear consensus. Please continue to discuss the potential edit; this page is popular enough, so I'm sure there will be someone here to edit, if a consensus is formed. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  06:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, this page gets over 1,000 views a day and that number will go up "a lot" next month when the shroud goes on display and gets a lot of press. But the reason we should be very careful with edits that make "blanket assertions" in this article is that the entire world seems to agree there is only one blanket assertion that can be made about this artifact (which is the most researched and most controversial artifact in human history) and that assertion is that: "the only thing certain is that there is no certainty in the research". For every argument here, people have found a counter-argument. And the other fact about Wikipedia is that pages get into NPOV problems one edit at a time. Here is how it happens:


 * Someone makes a small edit that just pushes a sentence towards their liking.
 * If no one objects, they make another small rewording that just pushes it a little more.
 * If no one objects the will make another edit elsewhere, again just moving things around a little bit.
 * Gradually, the entire page gets tilted either pro or against a given perspective.
 * After a while the page degenerates and a long debate starts.


 * And that was how this page, which used to be a featured article became a rummage sale a month ago, one edit at a time over 2-3 years. So it is important that we maintain balance to avoid a large number of small edits creating chaos like before. History2007 (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The inclusion of information that informs us that the pollen found is identified with the Edessa area is materially important. It is the physical link to pre medieval historical documents. So I would include the reference to Edessa in the pollen paragraph.

As for Frei's indiscretion, I can see your point of view with respect to the other info but it should be supplemented with info that the critic did not attempt to confirm his hypothesis with witnesses or records and that alternative arguements can explain the concentration of pollen. FYI, the overabundance of pollen that the critic is so concerned with could come from placing the shroud in a field of similar flowers. Or like dandilions in the wind, a portion of the shroud was exposed to an area which had a lot of wind from a field of similar flowers at the time of spring pollination, like Easter. Would not a gravesite have a lot of flowers? Perhaps handers of the cloth were taking "like flowers" (similar to a boquet of roses) to the gravesite when they discovered the cloth and carried the cloth and flower bunched together. Maybe a boquet of flowers were placed on the cloth when it was involved in an exposition. These are all reasonable and "common event" explanations. More so than fakery. To solve the problem, one needs to review the scientific controls over evidence and any "backup" that the SURP team had to support evidence control. Also interview fellow scientists.

Without the critic's making minimal efforts to back up his hypothesis, his comments do not carry weight in a scientific arguement. Conspiracy theory evidence is easy to do, especially when the bar is set so low as no effort is required to demonstrate proof. Again, I am surprised you wish to include unsubstantiated criticisms that have the ring of "conspiracy theory" without proof and without regard to feasible "common sense / common event" counterarguements.

I appreciate your efforts in this case. This is a tough article to write. People have done a good job to get it this far. Thanks for taking the time to listen. JimfromGTA (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, first question, as Brandmeister pointed out, does Avinoam Danin's article include Edessa? I can not see Edessa in his article. So the Edessa claim comes from a 2nd hand account right? Please clarify that. Second issue you do not seem to be familiar with how Wikipedia works here. What I think and what you think have exactly the same weight, namely zero. It is not a question of our decision, but the fact that references out there say that and the "appearance" that the article ignores what Nickell and others have written. Personnaly, I think Nickell is not qualified to comment on anything, but he has many readers and press power. In fact I really did not want to bring up the Hitler diaries on Frei until you forced the issue. If you want dig further, more will surface and it is best to leave it at that. It is NOT for you and me ti decide on Frei, but to summarize what the references in general say. If you read the two references I quoted, they say that and excluding them will get some poeple say teh article is based. As for your reasoning on the pollen it is absolutely plausible, but it is WP:OR so if you find a reference that says that it can go in for sure. So please look for a reference, for that makes Wikipedia work, not my reasoning or yours. By the way, my reasoning (which does NOT matter) is that the Edessa angle will weaken the flower arguments since given that Edessa face image was visible, how did the shroud image become semi-visible? But again, my reasoning (and yours) matter not. You need a solid reference. The solid historical references all doscount Edessa as hypothetical. So please show a direct source for Edessa from Danin himself, as BrandMesiter also suggested. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Good debate. FYI, Mark Antnocci, whom I quote, has provided roughly 700 authoritative sources of information. His book, Resurrection of the Shroud identifies AND DEMONSTRATES around 99 characteristics that supports the theory that this is a cruxified man who died in Jerusalem. Mark is an authority BECAUSE HE HAS provided a major treatise on this subject in the form of a detailed 328 page book with references, illustrations, pictures, explanatory notes referencing both the physical and documentation from over years of research. He has even gone so far as discuss with SURP scientists their evidence, if he had a question. So Mark is a reputable source. With respect to the pollen discussion, it runs from page 109 through 114. The following individuals were identified as participating in the review of the pollen evidence as well as matching the Jerusalem tomb limestone: (1) Dr Ricardo Levi Setti at the University of Chicago (matched the calcium carbonate in the limestone found in the shroud with the Jerusalem tomb )(Ref. The field and Laboratory Report of the environmental Study of the Shroud in Jerusalem, 1986.) (2) Dr. Frei, Swiss Criminologist of over 25 years: took samples from the Shroud under the watch of SURP team. He is a botanist and expert in Mediterranean flora. (Obviously, the reason why he was allowed to participate along side the SURP team.) He did at least 9 years of research into the samples involving microscopic and electron microscope detail. (M. Frei, "Nine Years of Palinological Studies on the Shroud", 1982.) (3) Oswald Scheuerman who initially discovered flowers in 1983. (page 112, "Resurrection of the Shroud", 2000) (4) Dr. Whanger spent 4 years using enhanced photographic techniques to confirm Oswald Scheuerman's observation and discovered additional flower images. (example ref. "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery", 1998) (5) Dr. Danin, Prof of Botany, of the Hebrew University who confirmed much of Dr. Frei and Dr. Whanger's work as well as discovery of additional images. (example ref. "The Shroud of turin: An Adventure of Discovery", 1998) (6) Dr. Uri Baruch, an expert in Israel pollen confirmed Danin and Whanger as well as additional images and pollen. (example ref: "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery", 1998)

References above are sources that Mark Antonocci quotes.

The evidence is interwoven. That is to say, physical pollen and flower images cooberated each other through independant observation. (pg 112, Mark Antonocci) So it is not enough to say I can't see the flowers by a critic (because the critic does not use proper tools), or its possibly fake (because he didn't try to obtain cooberating evidence). The science and evidence gathering is well beyond that stage. It has been cooberated by mulitple experts over decades. These experts used advanced scientific tools to determine their evidence. And the evidence is interwoven.

As you can tell, I am critical of yellow journalism because it's superficial and is misleading. I'm sorry, but if you are going to include the "conspiracy theory" stuff, you need to balance with comments about the interwoven nature of the images and pollen, the cooberation amoungst 5 different experts who spent up to 9 years examining this stuff and the potential common sense arguments explaining the evidence. In addition, quote Mark Antnocci if you need a reference. He's an authority.

With respect to the evidence of Edessa. It is specifically found on page 111 on Mark's book. In reference to pollen from outside the Mediterranean Sea area and not identifiable with Italy and France, Mark states: "Even of the 3 exceptions, one species grows exclusively in Constantinople, and the other two are found in Edessa, Turkey". Mark's Reference: M. Frei, "Nine Years of Palinological Studies on the Shroud", Shroud Spectum International, (June 1982) pages 3 to 7.

Thanks for listening. JimfromGTA (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, regarding "good debate" I actually do not like debate, but just do this to keep section in balance, and also because once a debate starts, it is hard to stop it. Now 1st let me give you a few hints about what does not work in debates: 1. Calling people Dr this and Dr that does not strengthen your argument. These days everyone and his uncle both have PhDs and they all contradict each other. 2. Before you beef up claims about someone like Mark Antonacci check if he has a Wikipedia page. The man is an attorney and studied political science. He may have learned about pollen in his own garden, but is no expert on them. And he "runs" a pro-authenticity foundation. So most people view his arguments as tilted that way even before he starts. And his book is published by Evans, which usually publishes controversial titles and the name of his book is almost the same as the name of his foundation, not quite within WP:reliable range but still usable within Wikipedia with qualification. 3. Using unrelated argument does not help your point. Levi-Setti is highly respected and his work is not questioned. But it is on limestone and and inanimate items and is irrelevant to pollen. In fact there is another section on dirt particles above that discusses that. So please leave him out of this section. So the question that we asked was: Does anyone except Mark discuss Edessa with a favorable tilt? Your answer now is that Frei. Now that can certainly bring Edessa in. All you needed to do was to type this: M. Frei, "Nine Years of Palynological Studies on the Shroud", Shroud Spectum International, (June 1982) pages 3 to 7 and the rest of the discussion was not needed. So I will now add that because I checked and several other items refer to it beside Mark's book - which is borderline by itself.  History2007 (talk) 06:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Process noted. Question: since physical pollen evidence of Jerusalem, Constantinople and Edessa are important linkages to the pre medieval period, does this mean you will be amending the comment to include both Constantinople and Edessa as well? Thanks for your time. JimfromGTA (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I did not understand which comment you mean in you last Question here. History2007 (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Edit you did is ok. Question answered. Thanks JimfromGTA (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, fine. But I should probably address the issue you brought up in this edit:, specifically your comment that: Perhaps someday, the article in Wikipedia will reflect this simplicity. Simplicity is of course desired whenever possible, but it does not seem to be the case here. Year after year, experts continue to publish on this topic, and continue to go to conferences and take part in heated debates. This really is the most controversial artifact in human history, as the article says. If you look at the Recent developments section you will see that in the past 12 months key new ideas have appeared - e.g. Barbara Frale. So this is an inherently complicated topic. And Wikipedia MUST carefully represent arguments from both sides of the table, else this page will become a rummage sale again. Last Friday, Mar 26 2010, Jay Leno joked: "Wikipedia was offline after an overheating problem at one of its data centers. It was pretty bad. For a while there, people had nowhere to go for phony, inaccurate information". Despite all the work that goes into Wikipedia, the perception out there is still that it has "phony, inaccurate information" so we can not just let articles degenerate into the viewpoint of either side, just to keep things simple. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * When you present information in Wikepedia about the Earth, you do so in its simplicity, not its 1 trillion working parts and multiple theories, pro and con. So I prefer,      simplicity in summary concepts, and detail in side topics.    Again, the shroud has enough evidence to pronounce its authenticity (both physical and documentary....limestone, pollen, linen's manufacturing process, and the man in the cloth clearly demonstrate its existence in Jerusalem including directly linking to the tomb historically identified as Jesus', time of death - around Easter) and documents of 1st Century (Biblical records) confirm its identity (eg. Luke's description of the wounds, crucifiction stories from multiple authors, ownership of the tomb, existance of the shroud in 2 parts, time of death, etc. ).  All arguments other than the Carbon 14 have failed to measure up as serious scientific alternatives.  And the Carbon 14 turned out to be sloppy sampling.  So I don't get the need to confuse something that is simple.


 * Perhaps people have gotten into the habit of arguing the bits and pieces and not the whole, or got carried away with the various political factions (agnostics vs. religious). So you have two topics occuring: one is the shroud and the obvious, and the second is the discovery story surrounding its science, the perhaps thousands of man years of research by experts (SURP and many others), the development of the various science theories and all the side arguements that to the most part are unproven hypotheses without substantive research or lack an interweaving of multiple sources of evidence (armchair science).


 * Critics play an important role, but only if there is substantive effort that proves the core theories wrong. In the case of the shroud, the core theories have substantive reseach and have NOT been proven wrong by any additonal substantive research. Therefore, it is scientifically reasonable to state that the shroud is authentic.  It's only politics that keeps the obvious from being stated if I read the mood of your concerns properly.  Good debate...Thanks for listening. JimfromGTA (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that is a debate. But now that your edit request has been met, I wish you well and leave it there. History2007 (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)